User talk:JTOnstead20
Hello! Please be nice on this talk page and discuss numbers and functions! Remember, the more the merrier! JTOnstead20 (talk) 15:12, September 1, 2016 (UTC) :You forgot to sign. AarexWikia04 - 12:03, September 1, 2016 (UTC) :Ok, I added the signature JTOnstead20 (talk) 15:13, September 1, 2016 (UTC) :I need help with this: :TREE(4) is what??? : Thank you JTOnstead20 (talk) 22:15, September 11, 2016 (UTC) :TREE(4) is undefined. AarexWikia04 - 22:30, September 11, 2016 (UTC) ::Wrong, the definition of TREE(4) is the follows, according to the TREE sequence article: :::Suppose we have a sequence of 4- s T1, T2 ... with the following properties: :::# Each tree T''i'' has at most i vertices. :::# No tree is into any tree following it in the sequence. :::TREE(4) is the maximum length of such a sequence. ::-- ☁ I want more ⛅ 15:09, September 12, 2016 (UTC) :Sorry. I am a beginner at using Wikia. Can you tell me how to add a heading? JTOnstead20 (talk) 22:41, September 11, 2016 (UTC) :Hello: what is googolplex with a googolplex amount of -plexes added to the end of it? I would like to know both the name and the value if possible. Thank you! JTOnstead20 (talk) 01:10, October 18, 2016 (UTC) It would be E100#(Googolplex-1) form the Hyper-E notation.Boboris02 (talk) 16:01, October 18, 2016 (UTC) Do Jonathan Bowers or Sbiis Saibian have a googology wiki account? If they do why haven't they been on for a while? Username5243 (talk) 19:22, October 18, 2016 (UTC) Sbiis Saibian has one. Jonathan Bowers doesn't as far as I'm aware. Username5243 (talk) 19:22, October 18, 2016 (UTC) Is it possible to define the TREE(n) sequence in terms of the FGH? Thank you. JTOnstead20 (talk) 04:01, October 25, 2016 (UTC) Yes, TREE(3) ≥ fψ(CO^{CO³})(3),where CO is capital Omega.Boboris02 (talk) 07:32, October 26, 2016 (UTC) Ok so that's equal to roughly 0,2 in my Ordinal Array Notation. JTOnstead20 (talk) 15:27, October 26, 2016 (UTC) But on the page it was written,that the small veblen ordinal is 0,1,not 0,2. Correct me if I'm wrong...Boboris02 (talk) 18:13, October 26, 2016 (UTC) fψ(CO^{CO³} is not the small Veblen Ordinal. JTOnstead20 (talk) 18:38, October 26, 2016 (UTC) If it's of 3,it is! fψ(CO^{CO^w}(3) is the same as fψ(CO^{CO^3}(3)Boboris02 (talk) 21:10, October 26, 2016 (UTC) I have a challenge: Using fψ(CO^{CO³})(3) and Ordinal Array Notation, please define TREE(3) in NaN using the rules on both OAN and NEON.JTOnstead20 (talk) 03:03, October 27, 2016 (UTC) Fine,it's \(\approx (3\{1,1,0,1\}3)\).Boboris02 (talk) 20:28, October 27, 2016 (UTC) Thanks, I will be sure to add it to the page. Another challenge may come later. By the way, if you need any help, I can add your numbers from the website into the main wiki space. JTOnstead20 (talk) 21:12, October 27, 2016 (UTC) That would be awesome! I'm trying to add a whole bunch of them to the wiki,but they are just too many. I wonder how Sbiis Saibian made so many numbers....Boboris02 (talk) 11:06, November 6, 2016 (UTC) Happy Halloween! I wonder if you are going to make any frighteningly large numbers! (Get it?) JTOnstead20 (talk) 23:14, October 31, 2016 (UTC) Let's say that you have a notation with plenty of extensions to it. Let's also say that the next extension is an improvement and uses the recursion of the previous extension. A very good example of this type of notation is BEAF. But what would happen if you could match the extension to a number? For example, the first part of BEAF are the linear arrays, so this would become number 1. Then comes the multi-row array notation level, which could be represented by a 2. My proposal is to make a new notation called the BEAF extensional notation which will give a number equal to that level of BEAF's extension. Although formally defined BEAF only extends to maybe the 5th extension, this notation will be able to expand so fast that it may be able to surpass Loader's number! Please let me know if this is a viable idea. JTOnstead20 (talk) 21:18, November 5, 2016 (UTC) :This smells to me a lot like what is discussed here (the paragraph starting with "2. Don't assume..."). :By the way, in here, when people have ideas like this, they create blog posts to share them with others for discussion. I'd suggest you to do that as well. LittlePeng9 (talk) 22:34, November 5, 2016 (UTC)